# The Office: "Two Weeks" **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 27, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952 "2009-03-27T02:31:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/21 "2009-03-27T13:50:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Michael said something during the episode about having brought the clients in, and if they have a contract with DM, then DM has nothing to worry about anyway. > > But the real point is that Michael’s “new company” is totally imaginary and impossible and Charles knew that. DM’s interests were not being threatened in any way. False. While Michael’s new company may be a pipedream, a customer list has incredible value. Michael is an excellent salesman - and could very well be an immense asset to a competing paper company, especially if he were to bring along a list of all of DM’s Scranton contracts and price points. To allow that to continue would be foolish. And it would most likely violate a non-compete clause that I would think very likely to be in any and all DM employee contracts. ---
**Author:** ![davidw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@davidw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidw)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/22 "2009-03-27T13:55:20Z")
> [@corkboard](#): > > I don’t know where the rest of you have worked, but in my experience it’s absolutely routine for someone in Michael’s position to be escorted to the door by security after being terminated, with no opportunity to go around and gladhand your coworkers. Yeah, I’ve seen that happen in the real world a few times. That scene rung very true to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/23 "2009-03-27T14:09:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > But the real point is that Michael’s “new company” is totally imaginary and impossible and Charles knew that. Well, it’s fairly obvious that Charles doesn’t hold Michael in high regard, but he’s only known him for about a few weeks. He doesn’t know what Michael is capable of and even if Michael can’t set up his own company, he can badmouth DM to current customers. Charles has no reason to make this easier to accomplish. > [@](#): > > And there was no excuse to threaten Michael with violence under any circumstance. Are we watching the same series? I’m amazed Michael doesn’t get threatened with violence on an hourly basis. > [@](#): > > ETA, I don’t think Scranton’s success is creative accounting. The show has repeatedly made it clear that Michael is a savant as a salesman and none of the other sales reps have ever been shown as anything less than competent. Dwight and Stanley have both been highlighted as good salespeople. If there’s a weak link in sales, it’s actually Jim (who is not incompetent, but can be lazy and is an inveterate fuck off). I dunno, the whole thing kinda reminds me of early seasons of _M_A_S_H\* where much was made of Frank’s incompetence, while simultaneously touting how the 4077 overall had the highest success rate. There’s a contradiction between what we’re shown and what we’re told. ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/24 "2009-03-27T14:11:03Z")
Charles may be within his legal rights to do the forced march out the door thing, but it was an utterly unproductive thing to do. Oooh, Michael might steal some of our client information–bitch, please. Michael Scott doesn’t need a list of your clients; he’s been dealing with them for 15 years and knows good and well who the local ones are. He might not have their phone numbers right at hand without his client list, but this is 2009 and it’s not exactly difficult to find that and other contact information. Michael knows this. The rest of the staff knows this. Corporate knows this. And if Charles has any sense whatsoever, he knows this. But it kind of looks like Charles _doesn’t_ know this. Just like he doesn’t know that putting Stanley in charge of productivity or Kevin in charge of the phones is a dumb idea. It makes a certain sort of management-school-theory sort of sense–giving disaffected employees more power and responsibility to help them engage–but anyone who has actually spent _any_ time around these people knows it’s a disaster waiting to happen. Besides, what’s up with the whole “productivity czar” thing, anyway? This is the highest-selling branch in the company, so they’re clearly plenty productive. “Productivity czar” sounds rather like “assistant to the regional manager” if you ask me. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/25 "2009-03-27T14:16:31Z")
**Dio** , I’m kind of stunned by your take on this. Do you have experience in corporate sales environments? In reality, as soon as Michael gave notice, he would have been barred from the property, just in case he tried to take any customer information or any other kind of information that would be of assistance to competitors. In this case, Michael compounded the situation by behaving disruptively – preventing other employees from working, consuming alcohol, etc. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > A real world VP could also still have the decency to let a guy say goodbye to the people he’s worked with for 15 years Not if he started trying to poach customers and employees, he wouldn’t. > [@](#): > > and not be such a dick as to call security and throw the guy out for such a contrived reason. There was absolutely no contrivance here. We all know Michael would suck atstarting his own business, but no prudent corporate vice president would assume that. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > And he brought those cleints in, so he would be entitled to take them with him if he wanted. DM has no property rights over them. Absolutely wrong. These fall under trade secrets, which is a kind of intellectual property. Sales people – especially at the management-level – are subject to all kinds of contracts that bar them from taking any customer information with them when they leave. This is all covered by trade secrets law. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There isn’t any new company. It was just Michael talking out of his ass. How exactly is Charles supposed to know that? You know that it’s actually very common for people to quit a job at one company in order to form a competing company? And it’s very common for them to try to take customer information and other employees with them. And, especially for management-level employees, there are all kinds of contracts that prohibit this kind of thing. Customer information is very well protected in the corporate world and, no, it does not belong to individual employees; it belongs to the company. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/26 "2009-03-27T14:17:26Z")
> [@CrazyCatLady](#): > > Charles may be within his legal rights to do the forced march out the door thing, but it was an utterly unproductive thing to do. What’s productive about letting him stand at the door giving a 15 minute goodbye speech? ---
**Author:** ![SmellMyWort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea5d25/32.png) [@SmellMyWort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmellMyWort)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/27 "2009-03-27T14:32:21Z")
I thought the episode was pretty accurate. DM was nice enough to give Michael 2 weeks and all he’s doing is stealing company time and being disruptive. Charles knows this and the new “company letterhead” was just the last straw. Threatening violence? Michael’s the one who started down that road and all Charles had to do was take a step toward him (hardly a threat) and Michael’s tail was between his legs. Charles comes off as an asshole, but he is also new to the company and probably feels that he needs to prove himself to Corporate. He sees the disfuntion of the Scranton branch and figures he was hired to fix it. Michael’s a successful salesman, but far from a savant. ---
**Author:** ![Intergalactic\_Gladiator](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/intergalactic_gladiator/32/112_2.png) [@Intergalactic\_Gladiator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intergalactic_Gladiator)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/28 "2009-03-27T14:32:38Z")
I actually kind of like Charles. Yeah, he’s coming off as the heavy right now, but it works within the show. He’s in charge but he’s also an outsider. Yeah, he doesn’t need to come down so hard on Jim and Michael, but they’re both goofs. Still, they did show Charles acting pretty loose in the corporate office last week. There’s got to be some point coming where he relaxes a little. Maybe everyone goes out for a drink on a Friday night or some really crazy stuff happens and he just throws his arms up in the air and gives up. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/29 "2009-03-27T14:52:06Z")
> [@satoridt](#): > > My DVR cut out at the end. What happened when Charles was divvying out the responsibilities at the end? Kevin will man the phones while they look for a new Pam. Stanley will be the new productivity guru. I don’t think Charles is going to last long 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/30 "2009-03-27T15:04:17Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > What’s productive about letting him stand at the door giving a 15 minute goodbye speech? It avoids alienating the rest of the staff. Charles is shit for office morale. He’s probably going to hurt sales by trying to fix what wasn’t broken and destroying the loose atmosphere that existed under Michael. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/31 "2009-03-27T15:05:30Z")
> [@SmellMyWort](#): > > I thought the episode was pretty accurate. DM was nice enough to give Michael 2 weeks and all he’s doing is stealing company time and being disruptive. Michael gave DM two weeks, they didn’t give it to him. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/32 "2009-03-27T15:11:47Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Michael gave DM two weeks, they didn’t give it to him. They’re giving him two weeks’ pay and allowing him to come to work. As I said before, in the real world, he would have been sent home to collect his pay and his personal belongings would have been sent on to him. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/33 "2009-03-27T15:11:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Michael gave DM two weeks, they didn’t give it to him. Yes, but they let him stay in the office for two weeks, a decision that is beyond me. > [@](#): > > It avoids alienating the rest of the staff. Tough shit. If Charles would have allowed Michael’s antics, it would have told the staff that he’s willing to put up with any amount of jackassery and willing to let anyone hijack work production. I don’t think Charles sees any need to befriend anyone in this office. If they all quit - fine. There’s a line out the door of people dying to get a job. I don’t think Charles is a good manager - he’s made that clear. But that doesn’t mean EVERY decision he makes is bad either. Getting Michael out the door asap was the right decision. (Letting him in the door after he quit was a terrible one. Let him collect his two weeks at home.) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/34 "2009-03-27T15:15:52Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > They’re giving him two weeks’ pay and allowing him to come to work. As I said before, in the real world, he would have been sent home to collect his pay and his personal belongings would have been sent on to him. He gave THEM notice. In the real world, people keep going to work after they give notice. He wasn’t fired. If they’re not going to let you come to work, what’s the point of requiring notice? ---
**Author:** ![LionelHutz405](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lionelhutz405/32/536_2.png) [@LionelHutz405](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LionelHutz405)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/35 "2009-03-27T15:23:05Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Yes, but they let him stay in the office for two weeks, a decision that is beyond me. Makes sense to me. There is a huge difference between giving your two weeks notice and being fired without warning. If you are the one giving notice, then you have already stolen client lists or done whatever long before you let them know you are quitting. So it makes sense for the employer to use those two weeks to help with the transition. Fired, without notice. That is when you are escorted immediately out. So you don’t have a chance to do any damage. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/36 "2009-03-27T15:23:10Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Yes, but they let him stay in the office for two weeks, a decision that is beyond me. > Tough shit. It will be tough shit for Charles and DM when the most successful branch goes to shit because Charles is destroying office morale. > [@](#): > > If Charles would have allowed Michael’s antics, it would have told the staff that he’s willing to put up with any amount of jackassery and willing to let anyone hijack work production. I don’t think Charles sees any need to befriend anyone in this office. If they all quit - fine. There’s a line out the door of people dying to get a job. That line would quickly include Charles since Scranton is the only branch having decent success in the company right now. It’s not about befriending people, it’s about not killing the golden goose. > [@](#): > > I don’t think Charles is a good manager - he’s made that clear. But that doesn’t mean EVERY decision he makes is bad either. Getting Michael out the door asap was the right decision. He didn’t get Michael out the door, Michael quit. It would have been a _stupid_ decision just to fire him since Scranton is a branch that doesn’t need any fixing. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/37 "2009-03-27T15:29:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He gave THEM notice. This is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > In the real world, people keep going to work after they give notice. He wasn’t fired. Not for all kinds of jobs. You understand that different industries and companies may have different practices, right? It is _very common_ for companies whose employees have access to information that might benefit competitors to send an employee out the door regardless of the reason for separation. This includes companies that rely on information about their customers in order to make ongoing sales. > [@](#): > > If they’re not going to let you come to work, what’s the point of requiring notice? (1) Two weeks’ notice is standard practice in the United States. (2) To give themselves the _option_ of making you work for another two weeks. Just because they have that option doesn’t mean it’s always in their interest to exercise it. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/38 "2009-03-27T15:33:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He gave THEM notice. In the real world, people keep going to work after they give notice. He wasn’t fired. If they’re not going to let you come to work, what’s the point of requiring notice? Again incorrect. Have you ever worked in an office environment? When someone who’s given their notice is being disruptive, they are - 9 times out of 10 - just told to stay home. He wasn’t coming to work - he was coming to Playtime With Michael. > [@LionelHutz](#): > > So it makes sense for the employer to use those two weeks to help with the transition. Yup. As is usually the case. But the last thing Michael was doing was helping with the transition. > [@Dio](#): > > It’s not about befriending people, it’s about not killing the golden goose. And David spent a great deal of time in previous episodes trying to define what that golden goose actually is. He wasn’t successful. Claiming it’s something as nebulous as “office morale” is just as false as suggesting that a 15 minute farewell speech would solidify it forever. > [@](#): > > It would have been a stupid decision just to fire him since Scranton is a branch that doesn’t need any fixing. It sure would have. Let me find where I suggested they should have fired him and retract it…oh - I didn’t. How about that? What corporate should have done is brought David in and have a series of intensive meetings during Michael’s last two weeks and try to nail down specifically why the Scranton branch was succeeding. What did they actually do? Let him fuck around, drink booze on site, and generally piss away the opportunity. > [@](#): > > He didn’t get Michael out the door, Michael quit. Of course he got Michael out the door. Don’t you remember that part where Charles got Michael out the door? Before his 2 weeks were up? Don’t remember that? Maybe you should rewatch the episode. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/39 "2009-03-27T15:34:49Z")
Like **Lionel** said, if an employee is going to take information with them, they’d get it before the gave their notice. Not letting them in the office after they give notice is closing the gate after the horse is already out. Plus there IS no “Michael Scott Paper” and never will be. It was a totally fake concern on Charles’ part. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952/40 "2009-03-27T15:36:57Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Plus there IS no “Michael Scott Paper” and never will be. It was a totally fake concern on Charles’ part. No one is disputing that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-office-two-weeks/490952.md?page=3)